Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Oops, better leave a bit of unused template so people can read the instructions.
NukeBot (talk | contribs)
m Second assertion: Noindexing Arbitration pages
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 91:
'''From April 4 to April 14, 2006'''
 
TheSam criticismSpade most often voiced at the RfC is that Samtypically assumes bad faith and makes ad hominem attacks., Hisnot ownonly behavior at and duringin the RfCedit illustrateswars this. I apologize for walkingthat the ArbCom through part of an RfC that is already linked above, and I'll be as brief as possibleabout, but itat seemsand to me that the timeline of events of these ten days is telling, andduring the RfC format tends to obscure ititself. The following examples form a chronological narrative, although I've avoided indicating clock timestamps, as people tend to merely get confused by the timezone issues.
 
''April 4:'' '''"wikipedia is a playground for hoodlums."''' In his response section, Sam Spade expresses disdain for the people who initiated and endorsed the RfC, referring to them as "hoodlums" and a "[[hydra"]] of troublemakers, and regretting that he doesn't have time for "the usual [sic] dirt-digging" on them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=46957983&oldid=46957635] [[User:Daycd]] posts a (formally incorrect) protest in Sam's section,response which is quickly endorsed by many people. I post an outside view describing Sam as always impugning the motives of his opponents, which is also soon well endorsed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=46994464&oldid=46993054]
 
''April 4:'' Sam posts civilly on my talkpage and I respond in kind. Rather than through separate diffs, the ensuing dialogue on my page can be most conveniently seen in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=47139590&oldid=47138162 this diff], where I delete the whole of it (please look left and scroll down a little).
 
''April 5:'' When 12'''"I peopleam havechastising endorsedyou Daycdfor andyour anunfortunate equalinvolvement numberin the RfC"'''. When 12 people have endorsed myeach outsideof viewDaycd's and my summaries, Sam posts on my page again in a very different tone, accusing me of "abuse" and inviting me to "think about [my] role in where this project is going". I can only suppose that it's the endorsements of my RfC summary that make for his change of attitude, or perhaps the fact that I have signed Daycd's. I reply sharply, taking issue with being accused of "abuse" and inviting himSam to stay off my page. An angry exchange follows, where Sam "chastises" me for what he calls my unfortunate involvement in the RfC, and makes suggestions for how I can become a better contributor. He says several times that if I don't want to dialogue with him on my page I oughtneed to "remove myself from the situation" — remove my outside view, I presume, since that's the whole of my involvement — and assures me that he won't leave me alone until I do. (This is the only interpretation I can offer of the relevant parts of his messagemessages, but since it's so outrageous that I can hardly believe it myself, do please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=47130986&oldid=47123490 take a look] for yourself. WhenHis Irationale askfor himthis ifis that's what"a heRfC means,is Idesigned getto noprovoke reply.) I reply sharply againdialogue, accusing Sam of harassing me and tersely inviting himis to staybe offengaged myin page.only Inby severalthose posts,willing weto bothcommunicate. reiterateIf ouryou points.are Samnot says(willing heto won'tcommunicate), makeI the... mistakeask of speakingyou to meremove asyourself afrom humanthe being again,proceedings". I tellrequest him for the thirdseveral timetimes to stay off my page, and hespeak repeats that I have an obligation to either keep dialoguingangrily, with him,none orof removethe myangelic RfCpatience input.I Thesee basissome heother givesusers for insistingdisplay on this is that "athe RfC is designed to provoke dialogue, and is to be engaged in only by those willing to communicate. If you are not (willing to communicate), I again ask you to remove yourself from the proceedings"talkpage.
 
''April 5.'' '''"You do not appear to be an admin."''' [[User:Fuzzie|Fuzzie]] asks Sam to stop attacking megoing on myat pageme[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&diff=47134605&oldid=46985218],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&diff=47135196&oldid=47134605], aand concernis whichrebuffed Samby rejectsSam with extreme haughtiness.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&diff=47136002&oldid=47135196] In a familiar move, heHe ignores the matter at hand and turns instead to scrutinising Fuzzie: "you do not appear to be an admin"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzzie&diff=47136917&oldid=47060689], "Please explain your presence here."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&diff=47138627&oldid=47138044]. HeWhen he continues to posthis angrilycampaign on my page, and [[User:Cyde|Cyde]] blocks him for 24 hours[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Cyde&page=User%3ASam+Spade]; however, but he is quickly unblocked by [[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Andrevan&page=User%3ASam+Spade].
 
''April 13.'' '''"Huzzah for mob justice."''' After this quarrel and block, Sam takes a week-long complete break both from the RfC talkpage and from editing the contentious pages he's being accused of "owning"; then he returns in the role of of embittered, blameless victim. "When was the last time you've seen me edit any of the articles in question? You've successfully chased me off, huzzah for mob justice (so much for NPOV, Consensus, and encyclopedic standards...)"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=48335878&oldid=48291305]. Others on the talkpage will not accept the way he makes a virtue of avoidance (as he seems to be doing also in his evidence section above, and his statement on the main RFAr page) or his undented self-righteousness. [[User:Silence]] argues that ''"avoidance is still a form of ignoring and escaping the issues; if they are not dealt with, they will just recur again and again in other places in the future, even if you stay clear of the articles that have historically been troublesome in the ''past''.'' This RfC was clearly not created to try to 'chase you off' of any article".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=prev&oldid=48341904], Compare the RFAr evidence of KillerChihuahua and the comments of Geogre, who both argue that this change is sinister rather than beneficial, and a time-honored tactic of Sam's. A long haggling about taking the issue to RFAr now follows, with Silence and [[User:WAS 4.250]] fervently inviting Sam to start dialoguing constructively.
 
''April 14.'' Frustrated, I write a second outside view exhorting the community to make up its mind to request arbitration against Sam before the laboriously collected RfC evidence grows stale. Many sign it. [[User:Silence]] "replies" to it with an outside view generously interpreting some of Sam's brief and enigmatic talkpage posts as expressing good will; therefore Silence considers an RFAr premature. OpinionFour onusers requestingsign arbitrationSilence's isview, nowso divided,the asopinion fouron usersrequesting signarbitration Silence'sis viewdivided; but Sam himself re-unites it by continuing to post bitterly on the talkpage about his own services to the project and his opponents' many collective failings and misdeeds. AllIn four signatoriesreaction, includingall Silencefour himself,signatories cross out their signatures under Silence's statement, including Silence himself. [[User:Daycd]] withadds the comment "This contempt is worrying".
 
'''Conclusion:''' Even in/during the RfC, where Sam Spadeclaims doesn'tthat offerhe to"immediately attemptceased tothe editbehavior discussed in athe collegialRfC wayupon its creation"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=51272287&oldid=51250550], to work withhe others,only ordid toso respectin the effortssense of others,ceasing neither(bitterly) into edit the articles the RfC norwas onabout. thesePeople arbitrationgiving pages.evidence Hehere continueswho tohave pointexperience toof havingediting the same articles don''not''t editedsee certainthis articlesavoidance as a greatgood concession,sign. onHe Aprilhas 20[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=49307041&oldid=49283437]shown andno againsign inof hisintending, statementsor inwishing thisto, RFAr.edit without edit warring. He acknowledges no problem with the way he interacts with his peers (I don't indeed see any sign that he thinks other users ''are'' his peers), even claiming that he "immediately ceased the behavior discussed in the RfC upon its creation"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=51272287&oldid=51250550], or with the way he edits. So, presumably, the RFAr once over, he wouldn't feel any obligation to change his demeanour or editing practices, unless compelled by restrictions.
 
==Evidence presented by {your user name}[[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]==
- Please email me if there are questions.
===First assertion===
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring
 
===Sam Spade edit wars at [[God]]===
===Second assertion===
Sam Spade has inserted an American-centric, questionably sourced statement into the intro of [[God]] multiple times, although this has been discussed several times on talk [[Talk:God#.22most.22_people.3F]], [[Talk:God#.22vast_majority.22]], [[Talk:God#monotheism.2C_majority.2C_and_the_value_of_citations]], and archives. He states he is "removing bias" although universally the opinion of other editors is that he is actually ''restoring bias'' by inserting his view as "fact" [[Talk:God#Intro_bias]]. In all these discussions, editors have attempted discussion with the result of Sam Spade ignoring it, or simply stating his version is the right one (not a verbatim quote.)
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.
 
A partial list of Sam's reversions to his (unsupported and biased) intro, and reversions of this by various editors to restore consensus version:
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=43913309&oldid=43911219 17:08, 15 March 2006] Sam Spade ('''God''' is the term for the '''Supreme Being''' believed by the vast majority ...
===First assertion===
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=43913309 17:25, 15 March 2006] Bikeable (rv "vast majority" addition by Sam Spade. we have been through this before on the Talk page; get consensus there before adding it back)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=44193245&oldid=44173483 10:22, 17 March 2006] Sam Spade (intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44193245 10:25, 17 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (rv deliberate flouting of consensus, thoroughly discussed on talk page, with 100% support)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44193483 11:18, 17 March 2006] Sam Spade (rv, read the talk page)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44227079 16:19, 17 March 2006] Sam Spade (replacing dead cite w 2 working ones)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44233155 17:35, 17 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (Returning to consensus version per talk. The US is not the world.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44252035 19:50, 17 March 2006] Sam Spade (don't remove cited information)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44253607 19:55, 17 March 2006] JoshuaZ (rv to Consensus version.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44254236 19:58, 17 March 2006] Sam Spade (Do not delete cited information. Do not claim false consensus.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44254634 20:02, 17 March 2006] JoshuaZ (rv, Sam you are the only editor who supports that version.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44272706 20:22, 18 March 2006] Sam Spade ('''God''' is the term for the '''Supreme Being''' believed by the majority
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44399914 20:57, 18 March 2006] JoshuaZ (rv Sam going against consensus again.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44485593 10:58, 19 March 2006] Sam Spade (there is no consensus, join the talk page discussion) :'''note:''' Misleading edit summary: this is in spite of the fact that Sam had not participated in talk page discussion since at least 6 editors agreed his intro was POV and inaccurate.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44489908 11:48, 19 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (Sam, this American-centric POV pushing which insults over half the inhabitants of this planet needs to stop...
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44819953 16:06, 21 March 2006] Sam Spade (restore intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44825439 16:50, 21 March 2006] Bikeable (rv Sam Spade's intro to last by 205.213.111.51)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=44968516&oldid=44963632 17:06, 22 March 2006] Sam Spade (intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=44968516 17:13, 22 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (You do not have support for your personal preferred intro, Sam. It is biased.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45079133 09:38, 23 March 2006] Sam Spade (rv vandal) :'''note:''' Misleading edit summary
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45083247 14:03, 23 March 2006] JoshuaZ (rv misleading edit that put the correct picture back but also made Sam's prefered modifications. Sam please don)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=45696785&oldid=45652310 12:29, 27 March 2006] Sam Spade (monothists are not the only worshippers of God, Henotheists, pantheists, etc...) '''Note:''' despite edit summary, this is the same revert to Sam's preferred, unsupported intro
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45696785 12:30, 27 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (They don't worship the singular supreme deity who is the subject of this article.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45696931 12:52, 27 March 2006] Sam Spade (The people I cited do)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45707932 16:27, 27 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (Sam, you failed to make your case on talk for "majority" which in any case is not relevent - this is for INFORMATION, its not a POPULARITY CONTEST among deities)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45720445 16:34, 27 March 2006] Sam Spade (removing cited, relavant information borders on vandalism, don't do it again)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=45721352 16:36, 27 March 2006] JoshuaZ (rv, Sam the vast majority of editors disagree with you, if anyone is vandalizing here, its you. cut it out.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=46028521&oldid=46024208 16:43, 29 March 2006] Sam Spade (restore cited info)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46028521 16:44, 29 March 2006] KillerChihuahua m (Reverted edits by Sam Spade (talk) to last version by Tawkerbot2)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46028679 16:46, 29 March 2006] Sam Spade (explain yourself on the talk page, revert warring w/o discussion can result in banning)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46028958 16:48, 29 March 2006] KillerChihuahua (I've explained, Bikeable's explained, there must be six explanations of why an inaccurate, American-centric intro is unsupported on this article. Don't threaten me with banning for reverting your POV)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46029193 19:25, 29 March 2006] Sam Spade (rv crypto-vandalism)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46049725 19:44, 29 March 2006] Dbachmann (the intro is not the place for demographic bickering. If at all, use <ref>.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=46625308&oldid=46605925 18:53, 2 April 2006] Sam Spade (citations in the format requested)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46625308 18:54, 2 April 2006] JoshuaZ (rv, do not give misleading edit summaries)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46625436 18:55, 2 April 2006] Sam Spade (what the heck? look at what I did, and what I said.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46625561 18:59, 2 April 2006] Cyde (Sam, please see WP:NPOV)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46634401 20:03, 2 April 2006] Sam Spade (restore)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46634401 20:06, 2 April 2006] JoshuaZ (Sam, this has been discussed on the talk page now multiple times.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46790040 20:29, 3 April 2006] Sam Spade (restore cited intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46804989 20:42, 3 April 2006] JoshuaZ (Sam, this is the consensus version. many more editors favor this version, quite POV pushing)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46817032 22:13, 3 April 2006] Sam Spade (it is indeed quite POV pushing when you revert w/o discussion) '''Note:''' misleading edit summary. Sam has not discussed; others have, multiple times.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=next&oldid=46920916 13:36, 4 April 2006] KillerChihuahua (Sam, did you even read dab's post? You have no consensus; you have no support for your US-centric, inaccurate intro) '''Note:''' this is in reference to a talk page edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGod&diff=46054637&oldid=45722526] made shortly before Sam Spade's reversion in which [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] attempted to discuss the edits; to which Sam Spade did not respond. Secondary note: I inadvertantly reverted some valid edits with this revert, which I restored in my next edit.
 
Please note a total of '''27''' reversions within the period from 15 March through 4 April to a version Sam Spade had been reverting to for some time previous (older history left out due to space constraints here.) During that same time period, Sam Spade made a total of '''10''' edits to the talk page, of which one was wiki-linking the word deity, one was modifying that link, two were minor phrasing edits, and one a spelling correction. This leaves five edits of substance, none of which involve Sam Spade discussing his edits other than to post brief statements in which he does not address anyone's concerns about the version of the intro he continually reverts to.
===Second assertion===
 
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44014308&title=Talk%3AGod 2006/03/16 06:50:14] Talk:God (Intro bias)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44193493&title=Talk%3AGod 2006/03/17 10:25:24] Talk:God (/* "vast majority" */)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44253919&title=Talk%3AGod 2006/03/17 19:53:05] Talk:God (/* "vast majority" */)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45722020&title=Talk%3AGod 2006/03/27 16:40:22] Talk:God (monotheism, majority, and the value of citations)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45722526&title=Talk%3AGod 2006/03/27 16:44:38] Talk:God (/* monotheism, majority, and the value of citations */)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=46805357&title=Talk%3AGod 2006/04/03 20:31:49] Talk:God (/* monotheism, majority, and the value of citations */)
 
On 4 April 2006, at 17:52, Infinity0 stated on [[Talk:God]] that an Rfc on Sam Spade had begun; and his POV-pushing, unsupported, incredibly badly sourced, US-centric misleading edits '''ceased''', as did his personal attacks on those who did not support his version. This is a problem not a good thing. Sam Spade tends to fade quietly into the background when the spotlight is on him; limiting himself to astonishing (to those who have recently witnessed him in action) statements of neutrality, reason, and AGF, then after attention turns from him, he returns unabashed to his disruptive, high-handed arrogant treatment of other editors, inserting his preferred POV against consensus, against evidence (sources), against policy, and against all efforts to discuss with him any modification of his preferred version. Please note the pattern above of revert warring, waiting a few days, then revert warring again. I am deeply concerned that Sam Spade has no intention of modifying his behavior at all, and is merely biding his time until this "blows over." I could easily put together evidence of a similar pattern for Human, or very likely for any article which Sam Spade has taken a strong interest in editing.
 
Note that this has been going on for considerably longer than the span given in the diffs list.
 
===Sam Spade edit wars at [[Human]]===
Sam has been edit warring on Human for some time. I will make free to paste a post made on Sam Spade's [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade 2|most recent Rfa]] to illustrate:
#His ownership of articles such as [[human]] (this is the only page where i have intereacted with Sam) leads to distinctly dubious edits.
#:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39001119&oldid=38999685 20:23, 9 February 2006] (''rv, changes complete unacceptable'')
#::Response: (''Was it correcting the spelling errors you object to, or the removal of POV, or the factual corrections?'')
#:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39046348&oldid=39035955 04:30, 10 February 2006] (''rv over-riding bias, article needs protected'')
#::Response: (''Perhaps you'd care to participate in Talk, and explain what you think is biased, rather than doing a wholesale reversion of edits?'')
#:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39090051&oldid=39084819 12:25, 10 February 2006] (rv bias)
#::Response: (''Sam these knee jerk reverts are getting tedious. You are reverting some good edits with this blanket revert. If you think biased edits have been made can you revert those ones specifically.'').
 
There are multiple other links and complaints of POV pushing, edit warring, ad homenim attacks against those who do not agree with him, and failure to even attempt to discuss edits on that Rfa as well as his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade|previous Rfa]].
 
More recently, Sam Spade has edit warred on Human, primarily over the intro. By 23 March 2006, the editors on the page had reduced the varying opinions to three intros, and a straw vote was held. The tally was two editors for version 1, nine (now 11) editors for version 2, and one editor for version 4. Sam's was version 4. Goethean supported version 1, along with Schwael. The other 9 editors supported version 2. Other versions had been dropped from consideration. See [[Talk:Human#Three_potential_intro_options]]. This did not deter Sam Spade from repeatedly re-inserting his preferred intro, as usual with misleading edit summaries. Sam made '''27''' edits to Human during the month of March, 2006. Six of those were adding an NPOV tag, which he added specifically because he felt the strongly supported intro was POV, while his preferred intro, supported only by him, was NPOV. Several times he claimed consensus in his edit summary. Once he accused another editor of lying. Once he called the strongly supported intro "offensive." Most of the remaining edits made by Sam Spade to Human during March were reversions to his preferred intro and edit warring in the Spirit section. '''One''' edit was not edit warring in the intro, against consensus, or the Spirit/Spirituality section, also against consensus, or adding the NPOV tag.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=43781334&title=Human 3/14/2006 21:00] (The word '''Human''' has biological, social, and spiritual meanings. Biologicaly Humans (''Homo sapiens'') are bipedal primates of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=43794775&title=Human 3/14/2006 22:29] <nowiki>({{NPOV}}) </nowiki>
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=43912909&title=Human 3/15/2006 17:04] (restore intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44010815&title=Human 3/16/2006 6:12] (either we have a neutral intro, or a dispute header)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44197918&title=Human 3/17/2006 11:24] (restore intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44197918&title=Human 3/17/2006 15:22] (please don't misuse the term "consensus")
*:'''Note:''' this is in response to my edit of 13:52, 17 March 2006, summary "(Restoring intro which actually has been discussed and has support on Talk; Sam, why don't you work with us instead of ignoring talk, consensus, and blindly reverting?)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=44211266]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44347376&title=Human 3/18/2006 12:27] (restgore the closest thing to a consensus intro we have, the FA intro)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44396483&title=Human 3/18/2006 19:52] (rv, the article needs to be neutral, or have a dispute header, end of story)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44397459&title=Human 3/18/2006 20:00] <nowiki>({{NPOV}}) </nowiki>
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44800027&title=Human 3/21/2006 11:00] <nowiki>({{NPOV}}) </nowiki>
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=44822368 3/21/2006 15:32] (remove offensive intro) '''Note:''' The "offensive" intro is the one which has support of nine editors. The version Sam is replacing it with has the support of one, Sam Spade.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=44824317 3/21/2006 15:54] (<nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki>, read talk page before lying) '''Full disclosure:''' Sam was accusing me of lying. My edit summary had been ''Reverting Sam's disruptive continuation of pushing a microscopically minority view, while continuing to refuse to discuss with others on Talk''
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44968154&title=Human 3/22/2006 17:03] <nowiki>({{NPOV}}) </nowiki>
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=45290769 3/23/2006 17:45] (new compromise intro) '''Note:''' this is not a compromise, but Sam restoring the first paragraph of his preferred intro
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45175229&title=Human 3/23/2006 23:11] (rv)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45175926&title=Human 3/23/2006 23:15] (good grief, read consensus, will ya?) '''Note:''' This is in response to JushuaZ's edit of 23:13, 23 March 2006 Summary: "(Sam, this is the consensus version, quit it.)"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=45175577]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45290769&title=Human 3/24/2006 17:52] (new compromise intro) '''Note:''' Again, not a compromise, again, not discussed on Talk. Again, simply Sam re-inserting the first paragraph of his preferred intro.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45290970&title=Human 3/24/2006 17:54] (capitalisation, wl) '''Note:''' Accurate summary. This is a productive edit.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45291781&title=Human 3/24/2006 18:01] (restore spirit) '''Note:''' This is edit warring on the Spirit or Spirituality section. Followed immediately by [[User:Jossi|Jossi]] reverting, edit summary "restoring previous version" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=next&oldid=45291781]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45338748&title=Human 3/25/2006 0:05] (revert) '''Note:''' partial revert of intro to Sam's unsupported version
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45607518&title=Human 3/26/2006 21:04] (?Society and culture - spirit) '''Note:''' Sam reverts again on Spirit/Spirituality
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45693210&title=Human 3/27/2006 11:47] (revgert, stuffed down at the bottom is as compromising as its gonna get) '''Note:''' Same revert as twice before, Sam reverting to his preferred treatment of Spirit/Spirituality
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45727164&title=Human 3/27/2006 17:23] (restore spirit section)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45837647&title=Human 3/28/2006 10:01] (restore full intro) '''Note:''' and Sam's back to reverting to his unsupported intro
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45837851&title=Human 3/28/2006 10:04] (?Spirituality and religion - restore full section (while respecting Dab's placement compromise))
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=46027951&title=Human 3/29/2006 16:38] (restore compromise version) '''Note:''' Again, not a compromise. This time Sam replaces entire intro, not merely first paragraph. He also added an NPOV tag.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=46028763&title=Human 3/29/2006 16:45] <nowiki>({{NPOV}}) </nowiki>
 
These edits by Sam Spade are only for the month of March, 2006. The three edits and the summaries of responses from his second Rfa above are from February, 2006. These are two small segments in a war Sam Spade has been waging to promote his own POV on that article since at least May of 2005[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=13992760&title=Human] and very possibly since March of 2005[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=11078062&title=Human].
 
===Sam Spade violates NPA===
Sam Spade regularly violates NPA. His attacks are usually vague enough and not virulent enough to prompt anyone to do anything about them; he uses them as a counter-attack method when his edits are questioned, challenged, or disagreed with, which IMHO is more subtle and causes more damage. The targets of his ''ad hominem'' attacks must either ignore them or switch gears to attempt to defend themselves, which changes the focus of the discussion from Sam's edits to their character and/or motives. He frequently uses edit summaries which call restoration of the consensus version of a page "vandalism," thus calling the other editor a vandal.
 
==Evidence presented by [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]==
[In progress.]
===Sam Spade harasses and bullies editors away from articles===
As was pointed out in the initial request for arbitration, one of the main problems is that S.S., by his hectoring manner and persistent misbehaviour, drives people out of articles that he's taken over. This means that many of those who have experienced his behaviour and would want to add their voices here have no recent evidence. Even those of us who are not reluctant to persist with the defence of the quality of articles are eventually worn down. My evidence, therefore, is largely antique &mdash; but I believe that it establishes that S.S. has been behaving in the same way for a long time &mdash; that this is no recent aberration. (Also, much of my evidence would overlap with that of other editors above.)
 
===Sam Spade edits against consensus===
Sam Spade has a history of going against community consensus, defending vandalistic and disruptive edits when they fit his personal views and interests. For example, after a long Vfd debate, the article [[Conscious Evolution]] was deleted, the consensus being that it should go completely, with no redirect. Shortly afterwards, a "new" user ([[User:4.250.138.88|4.250.138.88]] (I believe all [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4.250.138.88 these] edits are mine [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)) recreated it (as his ninth edit) with a redirect to [[Transhumanism]]. When it was blanked, S.S. recreated it, and when an admin removed it, S.S. put it back again (see a discussion with SlimVirgin from S.S.'s Talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASam_Spade&diff=10852703&oldid=10848840], and SlimVirgin's explanation to me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMel_Etitis&diff=10858109&oldid=10853055]). (Retrieved from [[User talk:Mel Etitis/Forum]] &mdash; a page, long abandoned, at which I began collecting evidence of S.S.'s misbehaviour.)
 
==Evidence presented by [[User:Daycd|David D.]] (Daycd)==
===Sam Spade has a habit of avoiding discussion===
His ownership of articles such as [[human]] leads to distinctly dubious edits. KillerChihuahua has already mentioned (above), and added to, the edits i contributed to the RfC that show examples of Sam's reverts to his favored versions '''without''' discussion (in this case the introduction of the article human). In some of these reverts perfectly good corrections to grammar were also lost. He typically behaved in this way despite serious and active discussion continuing on the talk page which he barely acknowledged.
 
When he does participate in the discussions his usual tactic is to ignore valid questions, go off on tangents, often with an ''ad hom'' agenda (as pointed out above by Bishoen), or be flippant, for example "''A skull would be pretty cool actually. So would a naked chic ;)''" ([[Talk:Human/Archive_19#human_picture|Source]]).
 
He even ignored valid questions in his own RfC [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=47141814&oldid=47138795] or tried to deflect them by suggesting the RfC was out of process.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade&diff=48272777&oldid=48267608]
 
===Sam Spade thinks the majority are subjective===
Sam often justifys his edits by saying that the majority is usually wrong. This is counter to the wikipedia philosophy of consensus building and it is one of his habits that gets him into hot water with other editors. Previously, I have suggested to him that as an editor he should "''not tell the majority that they are wrong but persuade the majority that he is correct''" ([[Talk:Human#No_to_editwarring|Source]]), but this fell on deaf ears as there was no response or change in his editing habits. Sam operates as if all his own edits are objective while everyone elses are subjective. I think he really does believe this to be true but is another example of a behaviour that gets him into hot water with the other editors at wikipedia.
 
===Sam Spade edits against consensus at [[Human]]===
An example of Sam editing against the consensus in the human article is with regard to the FBI mugshot photo. He cited consensus on the human talk page for the inclusion of this picture, despite the fact that many different editors favoured its removal from the article.
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=35688390&oldid=35667190] On 18 January 2006 Digitalseal removes FBI mugshot picture.
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=35690040&oldid=35688390] On 18 January Sam Spade reverts with the following edit summary ''(rv, new images not an improvement over the FBI mugshots)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=36378454&oldid=36365291] On 23 January Digitalseal removed again.
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=36501146&oldid=36464461] On 24 January Sam Spade reverts with the edit summary of ''(restore image)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=37175775&oldid=37072611] On 29 January BorisFromStockdale remove image ''(I am removing the offensive and poorly done Image)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=37352588&oldid=37337264] On 30 January Sam Spade reverts ''(FBI identifies fugitives by sex, physical features, occupation, nationality, and race. From left)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39076354&oldid=39075179] On 10 February Krsont compromises ''(re-added "five races" pic - it is pretty much nonsense; but it is one notable view. It's also a much better pic than the FBI thing.)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39079260&oldid=39076354] On 10 February Jim62sch removes FBI mugshot ''(I can live with the Coon pic - I suppose as an example of stupidity, but one pic is enough for this section. Thus, the FBI pic can go.)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39090051&oldid=39084819] On10 February 2006 Sam Spade reverts ''(rv over-riding bias, article needs protected)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=39091739&oldid=39090553] On 10 February 2006 KillerChihuahua removes FBI mugshot ''(Perhaps you'd care to participate in Talk, and explain what you think is biased, rather than doing a wholesale reversion of edits?)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=40285992&oldid=40285658] On 19 February 2006 Sam Spade reverts ''(restore image)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=40718797&oldid=40718618] On 22 February 2006 KillerChihuahua ''(Bold part II, taking out FBI image)
 
In this sequence of edits four different editors have removed the FBI mugshot and it has been replaced each time by Sam. Other editors have voiced their objection to the mugshots in the talk pages:: see [[Talk:Human/Archive_19#Race_Pictures|talk page discussion 1]], see [[Talk:Human/Archive_19#I_replaced_an_incorrect_picture.21|talk page discussion 2]]. No one, other than Sam, was in favour of the picture and yet he edit warred on it for over a month.
 
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
Line 127 ⟶ 273:
===Second assertion===
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.
 
{{NOINDEX}}